| 2. |
- Varela, AR, et al.
(författare)
-
Status and Trends of Physical Activity Surveillance, Policy, and Research in 164 Countries: Findings From the Global Observatory for Physical Activity-GoPA! 2015 and 2020 Surveys
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of physical activity & health. - : Human Kinetics. - 1543-5474 .- 1543-3080. ; 20:2, s. 112-128
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Physical activity (PA) surveillance, policy, and research efforts need to be periodically appraised to gain insight into national and global capacities for PA promotion. The aim of this paper was to assess the status and trends in PA surveillance, policy, and research in 164 countries. Methods: We used data from the Global Observatory for Physical Activity (GoPA!) 2015 and 2020 surveys. Comprehensive searches were performed for each country to determine the level of development of their PA surveillance, policy, and research, and the findings were verified by the GoPA! Country Contacts. Trends were analyzed based on the data available for both survey years. Results: The global 5-year progress in all 3 indicators was modest, with most countries either improving or staying at the same level. PA surveillance, policy, and research improved or remained at a high level in 48.1%, 40.6%, and 42.1% of the countries, respectively. PA surveillance, policy, and research scores decreased or remained at a low level in 8.3%, 15.8%, and 28.6% of the countries, respectively. The highest capacity for PA promotion was found in Europe, the lowest in Africa and low- and lower-middle-income countries. Although a large percentage of the world’s population benefit from at least some PA policy, surveillance, and research efforts in their countries, 49.6 million people are without PA surveillance, 629.4 million people are without PA policy, and 108.7 million live in countries without any PA research output. A total of 6.3 billion people or 88.2% of the world’s population live in countries where PA promotion capacity should be significantly improved. Conclusion: Despite PA is essential for health, there are large inequalities between countries and world regions in their capacity to promote PA. Coordinated efforts are needed to reduce the inequalities and improve the global capacity for PA promotion.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kip, Anke E, et al.
(författare)
-
Low antileishmanial drug exposure in HIV-positive visceral leishmaniasis patients on antiretrovirals : an Ethiopian cohort study.
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0305-7453 .- 1460-2091. ; 76:5, s. 1258-1268
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Despite high HIV co-infection prevalence in Ethiopian visceral leishmaniasis (VL) patients, the adequacy of antileishmanial drug exposure in this population and effect of HIV-VL co-morbidity on pharmacokinetics of antileishmanial and antiretroviral (ARV) drugs is still unknown.METHODS: HIV-VL co-infected patients received the recommended liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) monotherapy (total dose 40 mg/kg over 24 days) or combination therapy of LAmB (total dose 30 mg/kg over 11 days) plus 28 days 100 mg/day miltefosine, with possibility to extend treatment for another cycle. Miltefosine, total amphotericin B and ARV concentrations were determined in dried blood spots or plasma using LC-MS/MS.RESULTS: Median (IQR) amphotericin B Cmax on Day 1 was 24.6 μg/mL (17.0-34.9 μg/mL), which increased to 40.9 (25.4-53.1) and 33.2 (29.0-46.6) μg/mL on the last day of combination and monotherapy, respectively. Day 28 miltefosine concentration was 18.7 (15.4-22.5) μg/mL. Miltefosine exposure correlated with amphotericin B accumulation. ARV concentrations were generally stable during antileishmanial treatment, although efavirenz Cmin was below the 1 μg/mL therapeutic target for many patients.CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that antileishmanial drug exposure was low in this cohort of HIV co-infected VL patients. Amphotericin B Cmax was 2-fold lower than previously observed in non-VL patients. Miltefosine exposure in HIV-VL co-infected patients was 35% lower compared with adult VL patients in Eastern Africa, only partially explained by a 19% lower dose, possibly warranting a dose adjustment. Adequate drug exposure in these HIV-VL co-infected patients is especially important given the high proportion of relapses.
|
|
